Ãå±±½ûµØ

Respondent’s Counsel filed a motion seeking an extension of the time limit to file the Respondent’s reply on several grounds, including exigencies of service. The Respondent was enjoined to submit a proper application requesting that he should be allowed to take part in the proceedings. The determination of whether he was going to be authorized to file a reply was going to be taken in the light of the Respondent’s motion.

In the present case, the Administration must be deemed to have made good faith efforts to identify a position for the Applicant, for it actually offered him an adequate position. For a position to be considered adequate, it is not sufficient that it is at the same level than the previous position of the concerned staff member. It is also required that it be in line with his/her skills, qualifications and experience. Anyone alleging that a given decision was based on improper motivation bears the burden of proof. Outcome: The application was rejected. UNADT Judgment No. 910 (1998)

The applicant did not have a legitimate expectancy of renewal. No express promise by the Administration could be found. Had there been one, the letters of appointment signed by the applicant explicitly state that fixed-term appointments do not carry any expectancy of renewal. No promise could override the clear words of the letters of appointment signed subsequently. It cannot be stated that the non-renewal decision was based on improper motives or otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion. The Organization was not bound to give any justification for not extending the applicant’s fixed-term...

The Tribunal found that the decision to reassign the Applicant was an unlawful exercise or the Administration’s discretion because, although the decision was based on her alleged poor performance, the Applicant’s performance had never been evaluated in accordance with the established procedures. The subsequent decision not to renew her contract was flawed for the same reason. Whilst the official reason given was that the Applicant did not accept the post offered or apply for another one, the Tribunal found that the non-renewal decision was motivated by the Applicant’s supervisors’ assessment...

The Tribunal found that the initial imposition of the reprimand was justified based on the Applicant’s own admitted supervisory failings. However, the Tribunal found that the withdrawal and subsequent reinstatement of reprimand were improper, as was the decision to transfer the Applicant from his post. The Tribunal directed the parties to confer on the issue of compensation.

The Respondent was required to act in the best interests of the Organization, when reassigning the Applicant, and it was principally for the Respondent as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Organization, pursuant to art. 97 of the United Nations Charter, to define what those interests were in the context of the administration of the Organization Outcome: For respondent (merits).